:smack: I got so busy counting how many greats there were between Elizabeth and Victoria that I neglected to go back and check this.
Liz’s husband Philip is merely 679th* in line to the throne.
Since he’ll likely die before she does the next guy in line after him is Maximilian, Margrave of Baden.
Max had been out of the line of succession due to marrying a Catholic but that has been changed so he’s got a chance now. Although at 88 he might not even outlast Phil.
- Based on India Hicks being listed on Wikipedia as 678th. May not be up to date. That’s right, the spouse of the Queen is next in line behind an ex-fashion model who runs a “lifestyle” brand.
You could say that Charles I was beheaded, and Charles II was banisheded…
Why would he be closer? He’s in line due to their being distant relatives, not due to being spouses. I don’t think there’s ever been a European monarchy where the regnant’s widow(er) systematically was an automatic heir. There have been a few cases of shared regnants (both spouses and siblings) where one became sole regnant after the death of the other, but they were co-regnants before the death.
There were a couple of medieval Scandinavian kings who ostensibly acquired the throne by marrying the prior king’s widow. However, I suspect they probably had armies backing up their claims.
Then there was the Swedish queen Ulrika Eleonora. She wanted her husband Frederick to be co-ruler, but the parliament would not allow it. But the parliament would allow her to abdicate in her husband’s favor. So the Queen Regnant became Queen Consort, and the Prince Consort became King.
And the widow wasn’t the new regnant; she was… part of the estate.
It is surprising how far back he is given the inbredness of Victoria’s descendants. They’re third cousins via Victoria after all (and 2nd cousins once removed on the Danish side).
The contrast with how prolific Victoria and children generally were compared to her uncles and father is pretty high. (Well, legitimate offspring, anyway.)
Which of Victoria’s descendants do you consider inbred?
Yes, what a difference two centuries make.
When Princess Charlotte of Wales died in childbirth, George III did not have any legitimate grandchildren to inherit, and the Hanoverian succession was in jeopardy. That set off the great marriage stakes, when the Royal Dukes had to put away their mistresses and marry, in hopes of producing legitimate heirs. The Dukes of Kent, Gloucester, and Cambridge all married and had children, but Kent’s single child, Victoria, became the ancestress of the current Royals. (Gloucester’s two little girls died in infancy, and Cambridge’s line died out when the heir fell from a window in Ottawa during WWII.)
No, that was the 2nd Duke of Connaught, who was descended from Queen Victoria.
There are plenty of Cambridge descendants via the Tecks, including the present Queen.
Nitpicks:
The dukes of Clarence, Kent, and Cambridge married in 1818, followed by the births in 1819 of children to all three plus Cumberland (who are married several years earlier).
Clarence’s two daughters died in infancy. Kent produced Victoria. Cumberland’s line inherited Hanover, and his descendants include the current Ernst August and other tabloid fixtures. Cambridge’s son married in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act and the title died out, but his descendants are many, including all of the present royal family via his granddaughter Mary of Teck. Meanwhile, the Duke of Sussex (another son of George III) also married in contravention of the Act, and both of his children were themselves childless.
(George III’s daughter Mary was Duchess of Gloucester; the duke was her first cousin, and their marriage was childless.)
I keep hearing Charles will pick to be George VII because of his grandfather but that makes no sense to me since he never knew his grandfather. If he doesn’t go with Charles III it seems to me he would be King Phillip after his father.
George VI was highly respected due to his leadership role in WWII, as well as having to deal with the abdication crisis of his brother, which would be one rationale.
If so, he would be Philip II. Highly unlikely, since the previous King of England by that name was Spanish, and after his wife Mary I’s death repeatedly tried to invade his former domain.
UDS and slash2k are quite right. I made a complete pig’s ear of that. Please disregard!
He was three when his grandfather died; he may have some memories of him. (Or perhaps not – my earliest memories are from when I was four.)
Harold of Norway and his siblings would be examples. Their parents were first cousins, their paternal grandparents were first cousins, and their maternal grandparents were first cousins once removed. (Admittedly, they’re descended only once from Victoria, but three times each from her near-contemporaries Christian IX of Denmark [1818-1906] and Oscar I of Sweden and Norway [1799-1869].)
I don’t think Charles’s personal recollections of his grandfather, or lack of them, are likely to be a factor at all in the selection of a regnal name. This is not a choice made for personal reasons. If he does choose “George” on account of his grandfather, it won’t be because he himself remembers his grandfather fondly; it will be because of the general, public regard in which his grandfather is held.
There aren’t many surviving members of the general public who have any opinion of him.
There are even less who remember either of the previous Charleses, but opinion of them is cited as the reason he might use a different name.
Only by people on message boards who care to debate such things - not by the general pubic, who’d be hard pushed to tell you much of anything about either.
That’s probably the reason why Charles gave up the idea long ago.